NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

by Paul Bedard

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

What? Is the federal government insane? That would essentially outlaw gun blogs, gun magazines or any discussions about firearms.

Which, of course, would help the Obama Leftist Socialist Organization help to rid Americans of firearms — only so that the Proles, the Groundlings, the Serfs would be disarmed and more easily controlled.

Who would possibly put up with this? The push is a governmental assault on the First Amendment itself — again, by the Obama Administration.

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting.

Again, all perfectly in keeping with the Obama Administration’s wish to completely disarm the citizens of this nation, a true goal of Leftists globally.

I have always said that when you lose the Second Amendment, you will lose the First Amendment.

In this instance, here is Mr Obama and his Leftists attempting to hobble and denigrate both amendments simultaneously. I couldn’t possibly have conjured that possible. Except that, now, I certainly can. This is certainly nothing if not innovative on behalf of the Obama Left. With this addition: the prohibition also focuses on the internet as well, and seeks to clamp down on the internet. Almost a Perfect Trifecta of prohibitive Leftism.

The NRA agrees.

“This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.

What could possibly be the reason for eliminating speech about firearms?

At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

Never in my 60+ years on this planet have I seen my country’s freedoms so hideously and naked assaulted by my federal government. I can only conclude one thing: this federal governments ultimately seeks total control and authority over each and every persons within its borders to the point where there can be no pushback, no dissension, no verbal or written disagreement on any level in any venue whatsoever.

For what other purpose would rules and regulations such as this exist?

More than half of American women now say owning a gun protects people from becoming victims of crime, according to Pew. Here, a woman carries a rifle at a gun rights rally at the Utah State Capitol last year.

Please steal and share liberally on your blog, Twitter, the Blogosphere and the internet.

BZ

P.S.

Unfortunately, this describes me to a — ahem — “tee.”

But I still own guns. More than one, in fact. And more than one bullet.

(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.

However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”

Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”

We’ve seen this already from the federal government, in terms of the IRS terrorizing Conservative groups with threats and actions not directed to any other political community.

We’ve seen Holder’s DOJ prosecuting cases based solely on race, at Obama’s direction. Mr Obama and Mr Holder are two of DC’s Racists In Chief. We’ll see how AG Lynch does.

“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.

“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.

Those persons who are ignorant of the world surrounding them would be the first to say “that’s ridiculous, you’re paranoid. Nothing like that could ever happen in the US.”

In response I’d say: “it’s already happened. Where were you?”

The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are interlinked.

Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate the Second Amendment by the federal government, to onerously regulate firearms and ammunition?

Because without the ability to defend ourselves on a civilian level, the federal government, any government, can lay rules and regulations on a population that has no ability to fight back in any manner.

Let me provide further clarity: the Second Amendment, as some think, doesn’t exist solely to enable people to go hunting if they wish. It exists to keep the populace safe from an overbearing government.

The Obama Regime is leaving in a few years, thank the Lord. But if another Demorat steps in, you’ll find your fundamental rights challenged once more. If that occurs, this nation could very well erupt in a fashion no one wants to see or consider.

Post navigation

Remember THIS America

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.